 DEWAN RAI |
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Centre for Constitutional Dialogue organised a one-day workshop on 25 November on the role of the federal system in preserving Nepali heritage.
A host of state institutions direct the government's efforts to preserve Nepali heritage, but how that heritage will be managed in the new, secular federal arrangement is still an open question.
Kosh Prasad Acharya, former DG of the Department of Archaeology, suggests the establishment of a commission to preserve heritage in the spirit of a secular federal republic. He said, "The state should support marginalised communities without becoming too meddlesome."
According to him, the central and provincial government should formulate broad policies, but leave the legwork to local governments and communities. "It's because of the work of local communities, not the government, that festivals like chandi, chhat and deuda, which were unfamiliar to many in Kathmandu 15 years ago, are so well known today," said Acharya.
Recently, the Department of Archaeology classified articles of heritage in 38 districts into three categories according to their cultural importance. There are 70 articles in A, 61 in B and 256 in C, in descending order of importance.
Bishnu Raj Karki, current DG of the Department of Archaeology, said the new constitution should give authority over category A to the federal government, while B and C should be managed by provincial governments. Provincial governments should gradually get local authorities to manage C category articles and sites over 100 years of age, which the Ancient Monument Protection Act of 1956 classifies as archaeologically important.
Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari added that public participation, with coordination from the federal or provincial centres, is also important. He cited the experiences of other countries as instructive in the proper division of heritage management responsibilities between different levels of government.
In India, for instance, the state and national governments work together and implement their decisions through multiple organisations. In Australia, the commonwealth and national government take the lead and are advised by state monitors.
Adhikari said, "The central government should have supervisory powers over the protection of national heritage, its sustainable economic use, and the enforcement of international conventions. It should manage vulnerable heritage sites, while provinces should manage world heritage sites."
He also suggested the establishment of a national heritage council of experts to advise national and provincial governments.
Nepal Rastriya Jatiya Sangralaya representive Bam Kumari Budha pointed out that ILO convention 169 gives ethnic groups the authority to preserve and promote their culture and heritage. "State restructuring on the basis of ethnicity, language and region is all confusing. But we have to ensure that autonomy with self determination or whatever we call it, assures ethnic communities the rights they have by international conventions."
Nepal's eight world heritage sites and other sites of national importance are at threat. Many more will be designated in the years to come. If we are to preserve our national heritage for the future enjoyment of all, local communities have be in the forefront.
READ ALSO:
Constitution 2010, Nepali Times coverage of issues related to writing the new constitution
